788
Listen
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
788 points (98.5% liked)
Progressive Politics
1107 readers
980 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Democrats gave up so easily and went "I guess we hate transpeople now? Is that why we lost? We didn't hate transpeople enough?" so quickly, that I"m wondering if Trump's election was part of the fucking plan to begin with.
I think at least part of the problem is that Democrats believe in The System. So when someone cheats and whines about fake votes and stuff, they can resist that with faith that the system is working, but when the system willingly chooses the other side they have no choice but to concede that this must just be the Will of the People. And who are they to stand against the system they uphold...
Don't forget about big money. The Democrats, Republicans, Harris, and Trump all avoided pointing the finger at what's to blame, it's big money in politics. Trump and the Republicans have openly accepted all the money from the big donors and the power that gets them. Elon Musk was a huge part of his campaign while they blame immigrants. The Republicans know how to work a broken system, just get more money.
Meanwhile the Democrats and Harris have to thread the needle of accepting big money too but not showing it. They can't outright say it's the billionaires that are screwing you, so they say Trump is, and that he's a fascist. All true but Trump's second presidency isn't the cause of America's facist decline, he's a co-morbidity of it. Then they are shocked when the system they refuse to fix is broken.
I don't believe the Democrats actually wanted to win this election.
Losing, while upholding the facade of "fighting the Republicans," means donations will likely go UP, their "underdog" status remains intact, and they won't have to pretend to govern, nor offer the public the milquetoast accomplishments that only verify they capitulate to their oligarch/corporate backers. Losing IS their strategy.
A Billion dollars in donations. Outspent the Republicans twice as much and yet spent on campaign managers and the salaries of their rich friends kids working for them and nice lunches out to expensive restaurants.
They are the party of money. And saying whatever gets them more of it.
No no friend, the Harris campaign had 1.5 Billion dollars.
And the DNC just threw all their workers out on their asses without even offering severance, because they're "broke?" People who had worked there for decades. THAT is their caliber of financial management?
The Harris campaign threw wasted dollar after dollar into Republican pits to gain exactly NOTHING, as 94 fucking percent of Republicans voted Republican (as one would expect of a cult). Meanwhile the top Harris consultants were people making millions a year from Uber who flat out steered the boat away from any negative messaging about the corporate hands that pull their strings.
They WANTED to lose. All the surface animosity is a facade; they're controlled opposition.
Biden isn't even using a tiny bit of his fucking brand new immunity to save the country. It's like he said, "Oh no, but they meant that just for Trump." I don't know what there even is to save if no one is gonna do a goddamn thing that still has the power to.
I mean, that special immunity is just for Trump. It's a gift from his supreme court picks to himself.
But that said, yeah, I don't think the fact that the court would crucify Biden is a reason for him to just sit there twiddling his thumbs.
I remember after Roe v Wade, there was the question of what they could really do about it, and on one hand, maybe not much, some blue states can do their best, but on the other, I dunno, something? anything? We could run ads, build the narrative that Republicans are who did this, they're the ones hurting you right now, and maybe we won't lose in 2024? But instead they really, truly did nothing.
No, some of them were already transphobic but thought they'd lose an election for admitting it. Now they think they will win because of it. They need to learn a lesson.
dude they banned a trans congresswoman from the women's bathroom and being a democrat she just went "ok, I'll pee in the men's room I guess"
That I get from a certain angle. There's immense pressure on "firsts" to show that they're not there to implement radical change. That they can just be a functional member of an organization. First woman in a fighter jet, first trans person in Congress, it's the same pressure mechanism. They want to show they can do the job first and foremost.
how did that work out for Obama? he capitulated and capitulated, and removed progressive options from the table just to get them to sit on it, and negotiated with himself on their behalf, compromised on his compromises. what happened? radical Marxist. lol.
you think she's suddenly going to be accepted because she basically agrees she's kind of a man, a little bit, actually? no.
nah democrats just don't have a spine. and that is a really bad thing to lack when the things the other side lacks are shame and honesty.
You're conflating Democrats generally with "firsts". This is something you can find all the way back to women entering the metal work space in World War 2. It's about proving that you're not actually special, you're just a normal person whose capable of doing the job without special accommodations.
no. rashida tlaib is the first Palestinian American woman in congress. it would be fucked up if she never raised any concerns on Israel's genocidal government just because she doesn't want to rustle any feathers.
no, it is about democrats, not firsts. weird how democrats always have to seem normal when republicans go fucking weirder by the minute.
I didn't say it was good pressure. Rashida Tlaib also catches no end of shit for her positions, as moral as they are. McBride is doing what she thinks is best for her job and for her voters. I highly suspect she's right too because she represents Delaware. If she makes herself the story they will not vote for her again. They want a legislator who happens to be trans, not a trans person who happens to be a legislator. Rashida Tlaib represents a district that wants a progressive over anything else.
if her constituents will not vote for her for standing up for herself against bigoted and targeted attacks then they shouldn't. also if getting reelected takes precedence over having principles I would hope you wouldn't anyway.
it's one thing to be practical and pick your fights. but if the fight is literally brought to you, personally... fucking fight back.
the fact that rashida tlaib catches no end of shit is my point, because that does not mean she should give up on her principles. and more importantly, she'd still be targeted if she did. that's what republicans do. funnily enough though she gets censured by her own party for being anti-genocide. because that's what democrats do.
I'm sure there were trans people who voted for McBride who might be a little displeased about how easily she's rolling over here, as well.
And even if we take that, she's uncomfortable rocking the boat, okay, whatever. What of her colleagues? No one except AOC is even a little bit miffed about this? Do democrats not stand together?
as i said, no. rashida tlaib was censured by democrats. capitulation and submission is what they do.
You're absolutely right.
The right move would be to make a big show of this, point out the absurdity, rightfully point out that you're being accused of being a rapist without proof, and give a speech where you point out that you just need to pee.
The Right isn't going to say "Oh, so you agree you're a man. Maybe you aren't a man, pee wherever, on my face if you want!"
They're going to say "Glad you know your place [Insert Transphobic Slur Here] now if we can get the rest of your putrid kind to get the memo."
By giving up this fight, she's well on her way to go as far in her career as Ernst Rohm did in his.
Don't know who that is? One of Hitler's closest allies, a commanding officer of the Nazis, a leading member of the Nazi Party, on a first name basis with Adolf himself...
He was also a homosexual who agreed with carting the [Insert Homophobic Slur Here]s off to camp even though he was openly gay because "Me and Hitler are bros, he's not going to....."
We'll never know how that sentence ended because they put the chloroform over his face and then he found himself waking up in line for the gas chamber.
If you ignore the urinals, there really isn't much point in separate bathrooms anyways. Especially in posh bathrooms like I'm sure they have in Congress where they pay the extra bucks to have actual doors on the stalls. This is one of those cases where arguing with idiots just makes you look like the idiot. Going along shows how ridiculous the moral panic was in the first place.
idk why you're downvoted, I agree. gendered bathrooms are pointless; it's not like people get naked there anyway. and fuck urinals. they're dumb.
that being said of you're gonna have gendered bathrooms you can't police genitals; gonna have to go with the honor code.
it's all pointless and the security excuse is bullshit. it's ridiculous that these rules would assume a rapist wouldn't get deterred by the laws against rape but would totally be stumped by a fucking sign that says "biological".
What’s wrong with urinals? They’re super quick and easy
it's in the open, it usually allows splashback, also peeing standing up is not that good for you anyway. not washing after you shit is quick and easy too; doesn't mean it's good. speaking of which, I think urinals encourage people who don't wash their hands because it's quick and easy.
I googled it and Google agrees with me: what?
while there isn't much difference for healthy men (at least according to some research so far), for some people with urinary concerns sitting down is better for emptying the bladder and having a better flow. although I'd argue even with healthy men standing while peeing almost guarantees splashback so sitting down is superior either way.
For fuck's suck.... Anywhere else in the country and that's a discrimination lawsuit.
What the fuck?
Is it possible that males with penises should use the urinal instead?
Pretty sure McBride is post-op making the fact that SHE is a WOMAN being forced to use the men's room even more asinine.
Not that pre-op transwomen or non-op transwomen aren't valid. Rock the girl cock if you want to lady, it's your body!
Weird Al's take on Rock The Casbah was WAY ahead of its time and also a lot more blue than his usual fare..
Sorry, you're absolutely right about everything, but I had to 😁
I don’t know if she went into rationale, but this may be part of it. It’s only certain congressmen who are offended and they will be re-offended every time she joins them in the restroom. I’d expect this is a great way to get them to change their mind by making them uncomfortable that they got what they wanted.
Also perhaps she wants to do the job she was elected for rather than bicker over which bathroom she personally should use
they're not offended by her bathroom attendance. they're offended by her existence. bowing down to their fascism won't change that. she's a representative; she represents trans people too. extremely disheartening that she just takes jim crow bullshit.
imagine if rashida tlaib would go "I won't object to Israeli government's actions" because she was censured for doing so. she's the first Palestinian American in congress, after all.
Exactly. Now she’ll exist in their bathroom as a regular reminder. For whatever reason they’re uncomfortable, she’ll be reminding them in a regular basis, rather than that be something that just happens somewhere else.
Is a flawed analogy. You’re giving an example of giving up without repercussions. That’s very different. This could easily be a malicious compliance scenario.
I don't even know what you're imagining here. what do you mean reminder? they're talking about trans people 24/7 already. they're not uncomfortable either. this is just performative.
Maybe it is just performative and accepting it means not playing into their performance.
Or maybe it actually makes them uncomfortable. Imagine some old guy who can’t deal with people outside their experience suddenly having the person they’re uncomfortable with in the bathroom with them, saying “is this what you wanted”? Imagine someone actually offended a woman might use the woman’s restroom, realizing that means a woman has to use the men’s room with them.
Apparently I’m assuming something different than you are, assuming there’s some root to their performance. Every sexist, racist, genderist, xenophobic performance starts with someone who is sexist, racist, genderist, xenophobic etc. These people are not just empty vessels cynically performing for the gullible masses, they are actual bad people cynically performing
I'm not gonna shit in the urinal no matter how much of a penis I have
what does this sentence even mean
No.
Second time I've seen this commented, but I must have missed a headline - can someone point me to what this is referencing?
Exactly 2 out of 213 House Democrats spoke out against Trans Athletes.
Of course that means all DNC are transphobes. /sarcasm